Assessing the use of responsible soyin animal products

Assessing the use of responsible soyin animal products

HOW WERECOMPANIES ASSESSED?

The Soy Scorecard 2016 measures how 133 European companies are using responsible soy. The companies are based in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, though many also operate internationally.

These countries account for a large share of soy use in Europe. Some of the companies buy soy directly to make animal feed; others buy and sell products in which soy is already embedded, such as meat, eggs and dairy.

The Scorecard focuses on these countries because Europe is currently the prime market for responsible soy and strong demand there is expected to influence other markets. We selected the companies based on our judgement of the main (embedded) soy users in these countries.

As in our first Scorecard in 2014, we focused on the use of soy in animal products as this accounts for almost three-quarters of all soy produced globally, and an even higher proportion in Europe (estimated at 94%).

Of the (embedded) soy used by companies, we have focused on "Tier 2 and 3" products, as defined by the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) Soy Ladder. This represents purchase of meat, fish, eggs and dairy.

We don't include Tier 4, which covers embedded soy in animal products used in purchased processed foods. This Scorecard does not assess the companies' use of soy oil or soy for human consumption, in products such as margarines, soy sauce or tofu. However, some companies have made progress in sourcing responsible soy for these uses, and we have highlighted this where relevant.

Companies were assessed on both commitments and actions. Many companies have made "no deforestation" commitments in the wake of the CGF resolution to help achieve zero net deforestation by 2020, and other developments such as the New York Declaration on Forests. In addition, some companies' commitments are captured under their support of the Soy Moratorium. We credited companies for these commitments.

Companies that have purchased Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS)-certified or ProTerra-certified soy scored positively, as we believe these schemes have the strongest social and environmental standards and credible verification mechanisms.

We awarded extra points to companies that bought RTRS credits from small- or medium-sized producers, or gave financial support to projects helping them toward responsible soy production.

Scoring criteria are shown in the table below. The maximum achievable score is 24 points.

Commitment/action

Maximum number of points

Membership of RTRS or ProTerra, submissionof RTRS annual report 2015

2

PUBLIC COMMITMENTS (9 POINTS)

Responsible (RTRS/ProTerra) soy

3

No deforestation

2

No conversion of other valuable landscapes

2

Protect high conservation values

1

Soy Moratorium

1

SOY PURCHASING (13 POINTS)

Transparency around soy use in animal feed

3

How much responsible soy was purchased

8

Supply chain options

2

SUPPORT OF SMALL- OR MEDIUM-SIZED PRODUCERS (5 POINTS)

* Maximum total for purchase, supply chain options and financial support of projects capped at 10.

Purchase of credits

1

Financial support of projects

4

We also asked for additional policies on areas such as using non-genetically-modified soy, responsible alternatives, and reducing waste and consumption of animal products. We have listed these, but not analysed or scored them. Most companies provided documentation and public website links to support the information provided.

The assessed companies have been classified into 5 broad performance groups:

NON-RESPONDENTS

Companies that decided not to submit the questionnaire

NOT YET IN THESTARTING BLOCKS

Companies that took no action but showed some recognition of the issue by submitting the questionnaire

The scope of this assessment did not allow for independent verification of all the information provided by companies. While the Scorecard is informed by verifiable data and (publicly) available information where possible, the final assessment is necessarily determined by unverified data provided by companies, including WWF's assessment of a company's actions and estimates of total soy use where companies provided only partial data.

WWF values transparency, and for some questions we only scored companies positively if they had made their commitments and actions public and/or provided the relevant documentation.

Swedish Soy Dialogue: As part of the Swedish Soy Dialogue, the Swedish feed industry has bought ProTerra soy or RTRS credits to cover all its imported soy. Because of this, some of the companies down the supply chain only reported their soy footprint for imported animal products.

Calculations: Some companies only reported part of their soy volume, as they only calculated the soy footprint of their national volumes or of specific product lines. In those cases, we used an adjustment factor to calculate the percentage of certified soy. This factor was based on public data (e.g. national vs. global turnover) or on an agreed estimate of the size of the company.

Double counting: As we approached companies at different steps of the supply chain, the soy used by one company could also be reported by companies further along the supply chain.

Specifying RTRS/ProTerra: Some companies, such as the Dutch retailer Ahold, did not specifically reference RTRS or ProTerra, but did commit to requirements such as multi-stakeholder standards and third party verification, or did not specify a timebound plan. If these specifications were combined with significant purchase of RTRS- or ProTerra-certified soy, we gave these companies the benefit of the doubt, but we urge them to make an explicit commitment to RTRS and/or ProTerra in the future.